Template:Did you know nominations/Gemmi Fault
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Gemmi Fault
- ... that the Gemmi Fault is a geological fault in Switzerland that was active in the last 10,000 years?
- Comment: Using the "last 10,000 years" definition of Holocene. Don't have time for QPQ right now, I'll do upon review I think.
Created by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 15:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC).
- New article, size good, well referenced. No issues. But I think the hook just falls flat (and doesn't flow well with the double "fault"). I have gone through the article looking for anything better and there is not that much. I do have one proposal:
- ALT1 ... that the last activity of the Gemmi geological fault in Switzerland was partially determined with luminescence dating?
Jo-Jo Eumerus, OK with ALT1? and still need QPQ. MB 05:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @MB: QPQ is here. Regarding ALT1 I think it's actually less interesting than the original. Faults that demonstrably moved in the last 10,000 years are rare in Central Europe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- That may be true and obvious to a seismologist, but I don't think the hook as written will mean much to the average reader. It would be better if the hook talked about the rarity as you explained it above - but that is not in, and is outside the scope of, the article. I think "luminescence dating" adds something to the hook that sounds interesting. Approving with both hooks; the promoter can pick. Both are properly cited at the sentence. AGFing that they are in the paywalled sources.
MB 22:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I was hoping I could find sources discussing these two aspects, but I didn't find anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- That may be true and obvious to a seismologist, but I don't think the hook as written will mean much to the average reader. It would be better if the hook talked about the rarity as you explained it above - but that is not in, and is outside the scope of, the article. I think "luminescence dating" adds something to the hook that sounds interesting. Approving with both hooks; the promoter can pick. Both are properly cited at the sentence. AGFing that they are in the paywalled sources.
